From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of User:Jallen/extratoe as edited by Jallen (Talk | contribs) at 15:24, 7 November 2007. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Although not a creation scientist Swedish geneticist, Dr. Heribert Nilsson, Professor of Botany at the University of Lund in Sweden, stated: "My attempts to demonstrate Evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having started from a preconceived antievolutionary standpoint."[1]

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, stated that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme.[2] Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[3]

In respect to the falsifiability of the evolutionary position, although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, commited evolutionists Louis Charles Birch & Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal Nature the following:

Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.[4]

The concept of naturalistic evolution differs from the concept of Theistic Evolution in that it states God does not guide the posited process of macroevolution.[5] An article by CBS News begins with the observation that, "Americans do not believe that humans evolved, and the vast majority says that even if they evolved, God guided the process. Just 13 percent say that God was not involved."[6] Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[7][8]

The theory of evolution was published by naturalist Charles Darwin in his book On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.[9] How much credit Darwin actually deserves for the theory is disputed.[10] Darwin's theory attempted to explain the origin of the various kinds of plants and animals via the process of natural selection or "survival of the fittest".

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck developed a theory stating that traits developed during a lifetime could be passed on to the organism's offspring.

The basic principle behind natural selection is that in the struggle for life some organisms in a given population will be better suited to their particular environment and thus have a reproductive advantage which increases the representation of their particular traits over time. Many years before Charles Darwin, there were several other individuals who published articles on the topic of natural selection.[11] Lamarckism asserted that evolution occurs because organisms are able to inherit traits acquired by their ancestors and this has been rejected.[12]

The great intellectuals in history such as Archimedes, Aristotle, St. Augustine, Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton and Lord Kelvin did not propose an evolutionary process for a species to transform into a more complex version. Even after the theory of evolution was proposed and promoted heavily in England and Germany, many leading scientists rejected it.[13]

Critics of the theory of evolution state that many of today's proponents of the theory of evolution have diluted the meaning of the term "evolution" to the point where it defined as or the definition includes change over time in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.[14][15][16][17][18] Dr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word "evolution":

...many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.[19]

Darwin did not first propose in his book Origin of Species that man had descended from non-human ancestors. He suggested that later in a book entitled Descent of Man.

Although Darwin is most well known regarding the beginnings of the evolutionary position, evolutionary ideas were taught by the ancient Greeks as early as the 7th century B.C. [20]
  1. Nilsson, Heribert, Synthetische Artbildung, Verlag CWK Gleerup, Lund, Sweden, 1953, page 1185
  4. L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349
  5. Dr. Werner Gitt, 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution First published: Creation 17(4):49–51, September 1995
  6. CBS News (online), Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution: Most Americans Do Not Believe Human Beings Evolved, July 14, 2007
  7. Dr. Don Batten, A Who’s Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32 December 1997.
  8. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
  9. Charles Darwin, (1859),The Origin of Species, Project Gutenberg online text
  10. Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
  11. Russell Grigg, Darwin’s Illegitimate Brainchild: If You Thought Darwin’s Origin Was Original, Think Again!
  12., Definition of Lamarkism
  13. Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, Darwin, Evolution, and His Critics - Part 3, How Was Darwin's Theory of Evolution First Received
  14. Glossary Definitions of "Evolution"
  15. Fallacies used to support evolution:Equivocation
  16. The Meanings of Evolution
  17. Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
  18., definition for "evolution"
  19. Jonathan Sarfati,Ph.D., F.M. Refuting Evolution 2, Chapter 1, Argument: Creationism is religion, not science
  20. Dr. Jerry Bergman, Evolutionary Naturalism: An Ancient Idea First published: TJ 15(2):77–80 August 2001